Trey Gowdy appeared on Fox News’ Justice with Jeanine Pirro, Sunday night, to talk about last week’s Oversight and Reform Committee hearing with Lois Lerner. As you may recall, Gowdy had confidently predicted that Lerner would testify either last Wednesday or this Wednesday and also suggested that she would be immediately held in contempt of Congress if she didn’t.

“We expected her to testify and I spent the weekend preparing different lines of questions, Gowdy explained. “Then we learned that morning that she would again be invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege again.”

He told Pirro that Lerner seems to have had a change of heart and that it was her lawyer had initiated the email conversation about delaying her testimony by one week.

After the hearing, Lerner’s Lawyer issued a statement saying “there’s no possibility that Miss Lerner would be given a fair opportunity to speak or tell the truth.”

“That’s their excuse for taking the Fifth”, Pirro said. “Does that make sense to you?”

“No, that’s laughable,” Gowdy responded. “She talked to the Dept of Justice which is the one group that can actually put her in jail and she talked to them without any immunity and without any conditions, but she can’t talk to a group of washed up former prosecutors who can’t put her in jail.”

“What does that tell you?” Pirro asked.

“That she’s willing to go behind closed doors and talk to a bunch of DOJ prosecutors that she doesn’t think are gonna -uh- actually prosecute her, but she won’t talk to your viewers or her fellow citizens,” answered Gowdy. “He (Obama) said there’s not a smidgen of corruption so maybe she knows something the rest of us don’t know.”

Let’s not mince words. The fix is in at Justice. They will find just enough “wrongdoing” (like Hillary’s Accountability Review Board did with Benghazi) to convince the media that they did their due diligence, but not enough to actually get to the bottom of it.

At CPAC, Cleta Mitchell said that they would hire their own private investigators to do a probe of the IRS scandal.

As for what is going to happen next, Gowdy said he believed, “we’re going to have another hearing without her presence and we’re going to try to get our Democrat colleagues to help us get her back to answer our questions.”

If she refuses to testify, Gowdy says they will hold her in contempt of Congress which requires a referral to the executive branch or US Attorney to prosecute her – that’s not going to happen. So we’ll then have to go in front of a federal judge and he can find that she waived her Fifth Amendment right and she’ll have to talk. But that’s going to be months if not years.”

The missing player in all this is the MSM which could if it wanted, put this issue on all of the front pages, putting pressure on the Regime. But “that’s not going to happen” either.

Gowdy downplayed the drama last week between Chairman Issa and Rep. Cummings. “Well, Chairman Issa has apologized and I think that that apology was warranted – and necessary – and Mr. Cummings tells us that he was simply going to say that “if I can help you get the answers to these questions, let’s find another way to do it, and his way is a proffer – behind closed doors – but still it’s a start.”

After the break, Gowdy talked about the evidence the committee has in their possession that shows more than a smidgen of corruption.

“There are emails from Lois Lerner that says ‘maybe the FEC can save the day,’ Gowdy said. Save the day for whom?! There are emails that she got that said Democrats may be losing the Senate, and her response was, ‘that would be worse than a Republican president.’ There are emails where she said ‘we need a project but we don’t need that project to appear per se political.'”

“And Congressman,” Pirro piped in, “there are emails where she actually uses the Koch brothers’ names…she says, ‘we need to fix this now before the election.”

(Bear in mind, this was before the 2012 election. Senate Democrats like Chuck Schumer, Dingy Harry, and Kay Hagenare all hitting all the same notes about Citizens United and the Koch brothers in 2014.) The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise.

“What was she talking about there?” Pirro asked. “Shutting up conservative voices,” Gowdy answered without missing a beat. “That is exactly what this is about. She is a card carrying Democrat. She did not want the president to lose, and she did not want the Republicans to take over the Senate.

This Lerner situation is really complex and is a lot deeper than most people think.

Why would Lerner cooperate with the DOinJ and not the Investigating Committee? Has DOinJ extended some sort of immunity to her, for her cooperation? As the resident cynic here, I’m thinking that Lerner’s appearance last week was a attempt to embarrass Issa and the committee by saying she was going to testify, then stories being floated that “maybe with a delay”, then her grand entrance and ultimately not. After all the fanfare of her appearance and Issa’s statements from his appearance on Fox News Sunday the Sunday before, saying that she would testify.

Now add the “dog and pony show” that Cummings put on. If the committee decides to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress, those charges are referred to the DOinJ and Eric Holder for prosecution. I’m juss sayin’ !

They desperately need to change the bill–and as I understand it it was a bill–requiring them to take Congressional charges through the D.C. District Attorney or the Justice Department. Whenever they have the votes that’s a top priority

RE: “As for what is going to happen next, Gowdy said he believed, ‘we’re going to have another hearing without her presence and we’re going to try to get our Democrat colleagues to help us get her back to answer our questions.'”
Why? Ms. Lerhner is certainly guilty as hell, she’s a true pro-Obama zelot. Her goal is to get immunity for herself and take the fall for all crimes, including the grassy knoll in Dallas. She will never answer questions without immunity, and she intends to be the sacrifice once she gets immunity. Asking her back is a complete waste of time and resorces.

Appoint a special prosecutor. The law governing the creation of a special prosecutor was made for this.

I’m really torn on this, should a Special Prosecutor be appointed or a Select Committee? I’ve thought all along that the best shot was with Issa’s investigation, but for some reason they only seem like they want to pull their punches. To my knowledge they have not used their “subpoena power” and have decided to “wait out” any responses to their written requests for documents and material. Some of them date back a year or more.

A Special Prosecutor gets appointed by Holder out of the DOinJ. Does anyone really believe he’ll appoint anyone other than a partisan party hack like he has already done? A Select Committee is what we currently have only on steroids. Little if anything will ever be accomplished. Any contempt or criminal charges gets refereed to DOinJ for prosecution. The committee can file in the D.C. Circuit Court for violations of their subpoenas request. The Court that obozo and harri weed are now trying to “load up” with progressive Judges by the invoking the “nuclear option” {a simple 51 majority vote}. Some of those positions have been empty since before Justice John Roberts was pulled out of there for his nomination to the Supreme Court. Back then the dems held up nominations by Bush to that Court because it is usually considered a stepping stone up to the Supreme Court.

Their best bet might be to insist and get a Court Ruling that she {Lerner} “waived” her 5th Amendment Rights and force her testimony. Short of that perhaps a “proffer” with “limited immunity” and find out what she is willing to testify too and about. One thing is for sure she sure looks a lot more drawn in this last appearance than she did in the first one. Things look like they are wearing on her. So turn the screw and apply some pressure on her, I say.

We need to make the case everywhere with our friends and associates about what the C 4 organization allows citizens to do. The left has been very successful at making this all about for profit corporations buying elections. We have to tell everyone about the other part of the law, the one that allows us the ability to join together and advocate the causes we hold dear. I tried to make the case to a friend who is in the carpet business who fell for this BS. This is what I told him, and I hope Deb, with your gift for words, can make the case better:
–If a politician or political party wants to ban laying carpet by people who are not wearing space suits, then you cannot get together with other carpet installers and advocate against this nonsense. Furthermore your group or carpet layers would not be able to take out a political ad on TV or in the Newspaper, that told other people about the ban and especially who was behind it. Why? you ask? Well, when 100 or 1000 people get together to pool their resources, they have to incorporate so the monies can be properly accounted for AND so the person in charge of the money or leader of the group does not bear a legal liability for actions of one or more of the members. Undoing the Citizens United ruling would ban the ability to advocate (free speech) for the ideal of the members. The idea that one person or the 1000 individually (not as a group) could put together an ad or any other kind of influence that would get to their fellow citizens, without AN ORGANIZATION is impossible. The only people who could legally be advocates are members of the elite media. The media is exempt from the law.

The same would go for raising taxes, healthcare changes, or even military action. No one could band together to advocate one way or the other. In fact in the Supreme Court deliberations, one justice asked the FEC advocate for banning contributions, if this means that someone could not even write a blog post or even write a book about a candidate. The advocate told the justices that yes! these actions could be banned. The entire bench was stunned. Remember that when they use the word Corporation, it means any group of people who join together (incorporate) to advocate a cause and against politicians who dislike their cause. Perhaps they could fashion a law that limited for profit businesses from contributing certain amounts but then big business could advocate costly regulations that only a big business could meet, crushing competition from new, up and coming small businesses. Also companies that are supposedly non profit like Kaiser and Blue Shield could contribute monies and their for-profit competition could not. This is not an easy ‘just ban-em’ problem. More speech and more opportunities for little people like you and me to get together an advocate for freedom or the constitution is what is called for…not less. There are few politicians that we really really like out there so I want to be able to give what little money I have to a group (read in there that they are incorporated) that best represents my ideas and advocates for me. For Instance, I like NFIB.

501C4 Organizations are not tax deductible contributions in most cases but the monies given to the corporations are not treated like income. The advocate money is not taxed twice, once when earned and then again when donated to the organization. The tax exempt is only not taxed twice, this is not like a charity where money you give is not counted like income for the giver but rather not counted as income to the corporation (advocate group) given.–

The left is muddying the water purposely to confuse people. They make it sound like this is for GE to buy an election. If they take this away, then you and I will be unable to gather together as a group and make our voices heard. We won’t be able to put up billboards, take out ad buys on our local radio station, or newspaper, or web pages unless we pay for it ourselves individually and even then if it is close to an election we will be forbidden now. Please explain it on your site in the way that only you can.